It was the wrong thread

[Hank Chinaski]

Okay, we sue D, and serve the registered agent on May 1 2014, then the process server serves the company on May 3 2014 (the dates are fiction, please don't tell me some date is a weekend). The May 3 proof got filed with Court.

There is a patent office action a D can bring to challenge a patent in suit, however, it must be brought within 1 year of service. Of course D filed a request for it May 3 2015.

I find nothing about the effect of redundant service (i.e. nothing saying the second service negates the earlier).

The 1 year deadline is statutory and agencies typically have no authority to ignore it. The first service was proper, right, I mean unless there is some "second service negates first." The cases seem to say unless D can prove it wasn't served the proof screw up is not prejudicial-

Thoughts?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Okay, we sue D, and serve the registered agent on May 1 2014, then the process server serves the company on May 3 2014 (the dates are fiction, please don't tell me some date is a weekend). The May 3 proof got filed with Court.

There is a patent office action a D can bring to challenge a patent in suit, however, it must be brought within 1 year of service. Of course D filed a request for it May 3 2015.

I find nothing about the effect of redundant service (i.e. nothing saying the second service negates the earlier).

The 1 year deadline is statutory and agencies typically have no authority to ignore it. The first service was proper, right, I mean unless there is some "second service negates first." The cases seem to say unless D can prove it wasn't served the proof screw up is not prejudicial-

Thoughts?

One other possible argument for D is that by filing the May 3 proof, you are somehow estopped from claiming the earlier service date, but in the absence of any definitive case law to that effect, what is the downside of making the argument that D's request is untimely?

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

One other possible argument for D is that by filing the May 3 proof, you are somehow estopped from claiming the earlier service date, but in the absence of any definitive case law to that effect, what is the downside of making the argument that D's request is untimely?

I agree with Flower - it would seem that the best the other side could do is to throw some smoke about the date of service because of the filing goof. I can't think of anything directly relevant to my slip and fall practice, but it seems to me it would be kind of like those statutes setting forth specific (and non-waivable) timing/notice hoops that one is required to jump through when suing a governmental entity.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

I agree with Flower - it would seem that the best the other side could do is to throw some smoke about the date of service because of the filing goof. I can't think of anything directly relevant to my slip and fall practice, but it seems to me it would be kind of like those statutes setting forth specific (and non-waivable) timing/notice hoops that one is required to jump through when suing a governmental entity.

Why on earth would you give any though to such a painfully boring question if you can't bill the time?

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Why on earth would you give any though to such a painfully boring question if you can't bill the time?

Because I am the king of the nicey-nice?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Why on earth would you give any though to such a painfully boring question if you can't bill the time?

Thanks, I might have read some of the exchange but for this.